Therapeutic Misconception in Psychiatry Research: A Systematic Review

Therapeutic misconception (TM) denotes the phenomenon in which research subjects conflate research purpose, protocols and procedures with clinical treatment. We examined the prevalence, contributory factors, clinical associations, impact, and collated solutions on TM within psychiatric research, and made suggestions going ahead. Literature search for relevant empirical research papers was conducted until February 2015. Eighty-eight reports were extracted, of which 31 were selected, summarised into different headings for discussion of implications and collated solutions of TM. We found variable and high rates of TM (ranging from 12.5% to 86%) in some psychiatry research populations. Contributory factors to TM included perceived medical roles of researchers, media, research setting and subject factors. Greater TM in affective, neurodevelopmental and psychotic spectrum conditions were associated with demographic variables (such as lower education, increased age), clinical factors (such as poor insight, cognitive deficits, increased symptoms, poorer self-rated quality of health), and social functioning (such as decreased independence). Inattention to TM may lead to frustration, negative impression and abandonment of participation in psychiatry research. Strategies such as the employment of a neutral educator during the informed consent process and education modules may be effective in addressing TM. Further research is warranted to examine the different TM facets, specific clinical correlates and more effective management strategies.

La falacia terapéutica / A falácia terapêutica / The therapeutic misconception

La falacia terapéutica tiene servido para negar la legítima esperanza de pacientes ?sujetos de investigación? que se incorporan a estudios clínicos Fase III para obtener beneficios clínicos directos. Esta ?falacia? busca ratificar los esfuerzos de investigadores en negar la diferencia entre estudios terapéuticos que benefician directamente los afectados e estudios no terapéuticos, que incorporan sujetos a investigaciones totalmente aisladas de sus necesidades. En países con populaciones pobres, precaria educación y acceso a servicios médicos, se intentan reclutar participantes ofreciendo terapias no disponibles localmente; obvio abuso das legítimas esperanzas de estos pacientes de acceder a estas indispensables terapias que les son prometidas al interior de las investigaciones. Así, la falacia terapéutica torna-se un modo de justificar a negativa de ofrecer beneficios médicos a los reclutados constituyendo sesgo de trasgresión ética, especialmente nos países en los cuales el participante no tienen expectativa de tratamiento. Esta justificada expectativa de los reclutados que ingresan en estudios clínicos aleatorios es argumento adicional contra el uso de placebo.

A falácia terapêutica tem servido para negar a legítima esperança de pacientes ?sujeitos da pesquisa? que se incorporam a estudos clínicos Fase III para obter benefícios clínicos diretos. Esta ?falácia? busca ratificar os esforços de pesquisadores em negar a diferença entre estudos terapêuticos que beneficiam diretamente os afetados e estudos não terapêuticos, que incorporam sujeitos a pesquisas totalmente distanciadas de suas necessidades. Em países com populações pobres, precária educação e acesso a serviços médicos, se tentam recrutar participantes oferecendo terapias não disponíveis localmente; óbvio abuso das legítimas esperanças destes pacientes terem acesso às indispensáveis terapias, prometidas pelas pesquisas. Assim, a falácia terapêutica torna-se um modo de justificar a negativa de oferecer benefícios médicos aos recrutados constituindo viés de transgressão ética, especialmente nos países nos quais o participante não tem expectativa de tratamento. Esta justificada expectativa daqueles que ingressam em estudos clínicos randomizados constitui argumento adicional contra o uso de placebo.

The therapeutic misconception has been described as the ?research subjects? unwarranted expectations of obtaining medical benefits by participating in clinical trials. Thus, researchers have found a new conceptual instrument to deny that research ought to be of benefit to subjects involved, once again disregarding the difference between therapeutic and non therapeutic clinical trials. This paper argues that patients involved in research are justified and in fact entitled to expect therapeutic benefits from their participation in research protocols, because the sick should only be recruited for such therapeutic trials as designed to improve their medical condition, and ought never to be involved in non therapeutic research and the risks involved. Insisting that therapeutic expectations research subjects constitute a misguided and erroneous attitude, is an unethical bias when applied to countries with precarious medical services. Subjects with unmet medical needs will willingly participate in research that might be the only way of obtaining badly required medication, an expectation that is obviously understandable and in no way fallacious. These justified expectations will be thwarted in those who randomly fall into the control group, thus delivering an additional argument against the use of placebos.